Most of the lenses can be easily identified from the images. The fourth group down shows the GF5 with the diminutive Panasonic 14mm f/2.5, while the fifth group down substitutes the slightly chunkier Panasonic 20mm f/1.7.

That's an interesting comparison. It's curious that NEX chose to increase the size on the F3 (my C3 is a good deal smaller), also that Zeiss 24/1.8 is pretty big (but nice). In case anyone is interested the equivalent focal lengths you're looking at are...

Though the NEX system is often knocked for its size, and for the supposed mismatching of lens to body-size, this comparison seems to show that, at least in several of the possible combinations, there just really isn't much difference.

Though the NEX system is often knocked for its size, and for the supposed mismatching of lens to body-size, this comparison seems to show that, at least in several of the possible combinations, there just really isn't much difference.

Canon has done a nice job of shrinking the camera down and has posed a challenge to m43. However the proof, as they say, is in the pudding (or at least the images of the pudding). I suspect the color and sharpness to be excellent in the middle, but the edges are going to be a challenge.

To make the comparison really accurate, you'd need to stick the accessory flash on top of the camera.

But for me, the issue with the Canon isn't size. It's how limited this particular camera / system is, today. No EVF option, no built-in flash, and only 2 lenses. Yes, I know all about the adapter. $200, on top of an already pretty pricey camera for what promises to be pretty poor af performance doesn't impress me. I can get slow AF with legacy lenses a lot cheaper on m43.

Yes, maybe this is only the opening salvo, and this time next year maybe there will be a body to compete with the GX-1 / Pen E-P5 or OM-D / GH3 and 4 more good lenses. Maybe. But today the -M is all we have, and it seems to fall short in a price / features comparison.

Did I mention price? $800 with the pancake + $150 for a flash puts it in the same price range as an OM-D, and more expensive than every other m43 camera. That's close to twice the price of m43 cameras with similar features. If you assume people will buy this because they have other Canon lenses, add $200. $1150 is some serious cash.

Though the NEX system is often knocked for its size, and for the supposed mismatching of lens to body-size, this comparison seems to show that, at least in several of the possible combinations, there just really isn't much difference.

Yes, there are some compact lenses for NEX, but there are also some that are mind-bogglingly big, for their focal length, when compared to the body, especially the C3 body. That 50mm, for example, looks to be bigger than the 50 f/1.8 for the FF EOS. Sony's reputation for large lenses relative to body size isn't unearned.

Canon has done a nice job of shrinking the camera down and has posed a challenge to m43. However the proof, as they say, is in the pudding (or at least the images of the pudding). I suspect the color and sharpness to be excellent in the middle, but the edges are going to be a challenge.

Thanks for posting this, Amin. What I take from this is that we :43: users cannot and should not smugly dismiss the Canon and Sony (and to a lesser degree the Nikon and Samsung) entries into "our" little mirrorless camp as misguided.

The sizes of the cameras are similar. The raw IQ of the Sony and Canon models is (or is likely to be) similar (or better) than that of even the best :43:. Where :43: maintains a striking advantage over the others is in the breadth of selection and quality of native lenses.

Personally I'm excited to see more competition entering this space as it should drive all the manufacturers to maintain (or even increase) the pace of innovation. Of course the potential downside is that perhaps Olympus or Panasonic will not be able to keep up with the larger players, but I don't see that happening, at least in the short term.

Yes, there are some compact lenses for NEX, but there are also some that are mind-bogglingly big, for their focal length, when compared to the body, especially the C3 body. That 50mm, for example, looks to be bigger than the 50 f/1.8 for the FF EOS. Sony's reputation for large lenses relative to body size isn't unearned.

Click to expand...

You neglected to do the same comparison for m4/3 on the next row. Do you think the Panasonic 45-200 is any smaller than the Sony?

The sizes of the cameras are similar. The raw IQ of the Sony and Canon models is (or is likely to be) similar (or better) than that of even the best :43:. Where :43: maintains a striking advantage over the others is in the breadth of selection and quality of native lenses.

Click to expand...

I always bristle a little bit when raw IQ is equated with sensor IQ, because lens performance also has a big effect on IQ. As a general rule, it seems that in order to get similarly great lens performance, the bigger formats need to use bigger lenses. It's not always the case, but it is more often than not. Eg, Oly 45/1.8 vs Sony 50/1.8. Before anyone says it's the OSS, have a look at all the other examples of IS vs non-IS lenses from Canon, Nikon, Tamron, etc. Generally speaking, optical IS doesn't add any size to the lens.

ASony may be overbuilding some of their lenses a bit. A smaller, less expensive, slightly lower performing 24mm f/2 lens would have earned a lot of switchers to the NEX system, whereas the Zeiss 24/1.8 doesn't seem to have had that effect.

I always bristle a little bit when raw IQ is equated with sensor IQ, because lens performance also has a big effect on IQ. As a general rule, it seems that in order to get similarly great lens performance, the bigger formats need to use bigger lenses. It's not always the case, but it is more often than not. Eg, Oly 45/1.8 vs Sony 50/1.8. Before anyone says it's the OSS, have a look at all the other examples of IS vs non-IS lenses from Canon, Nikon, Tamron, etc. Generally speaking, optical IS doesn't add any size to the lens.

ASony may be overbuilding some of their lenses a bit. A smaller, less expensive, slightly lower performing 24mm f/2 lens would have earned a lot of switchers to the NEX system, whereas the Zeiss 24/1.8 doesn't seem to have had that effect.

Click to expand...

I agree, part of the problem with that Zeiss 24/1.8 is the $1,000 price tag. I think part of the attraction of m43 native lenses is that they are are affordable AND good. I think the closest thing on the NEX to a lens like the P20 is the Sigma 30/2.8 (cheap, sharp, good boken and smallish).

You neglected to do the same comparison for m4/3 on the next row. Do you think the Panasonic 45-200 is any smaller than the Sony?

Gordon

Click to expand...

Indeed - the size of the 45-200 is similar to that of the Sony 55-210. People often say tiny camera huge lenses when mentioning the Nex vs m43, but the Panasonic 14-42 kit lens is just as big as the 18-55 kit lens of the Nex (and the Nex F3 is quite a bit bigger than all the other Nex models including the 5n). And the majority of people buying a Panasonic or a Nex will probably get the camera + 14-42/18-55 kit lens.

The e-mount 50mm 1.8 is huge though and Olympus do small and light non pancake lenses with their 14-42, 45mm, 40-150mm etc - but then build wise they also feel a bit cheap and flimsy compared to the bigger Panasonic and Nex lenses.

Wow, I didn't realize the Canon was that small. Though I really like my m43 stuff, this shows that there is very little penalty size-wise for the bigger sensor of the Canon. Hopefully this will help motivate Panny/Oly to up their game (rather than beat them down), because the EOS-M looks like pretty stiff competition. And I don't even like Canons. My DSLR is a Nikon.

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.